Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that an attorney committed professional misconduct by fabricating a court filing and judicial signatures, misrepresenting the filing to school officials, and neglecting the client’s temporary-custody matter. The court imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law and taxed costs to the respondent.
Holdings
- Insley violated DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 1-102(A)(5), DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(1), and DR 7-101(A)(2).
- An indefinite suspension from the practice of law was the appropriate sanction for Insley's misconduct.
Questions Presented
- Whether Insley committed the charged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by fabricating a court document, misrepresenting its filing and effect, neglecting the entrusted legal matter, and failing to pursue and carry out the client's lawful objectives.
- What sanction was appropriate for the combination of dishonesty, misrepresentation, fabrication of judicial officers' signatures, neglect, and nonparticipation in the disciplinary process.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene, 74 Ohio St. 3d 13, 655 N.E.2d 1299 (1995)(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bandy, 81 Ohio St. 3d 291, 690 N.E.2d 1280 (1998)(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St. 3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237 (1995)(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo, 76 Ohio St. 3d 369, 667 N.E.2d 1186 (1996)(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hutchins, 102 Ohio St. 3d 97, 2004-Ohio-1805, 807 N.E.2d 303, ¶ 31(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…